Anthropogenic Influence On Arctic Climate

‘Too Small To Be Detected’

The evidence compiled in scientific papers continues to rapidly accumulate.

An anthropogenic signal in the regional Arctic climate is still too small to be detected.

Temperature, glacier melt, and sea ice changes are all well within the range of natural variation for the Arctic region. The changes that do occur have identifiable origins that are unrelated to atmospheric CO2 concentrations or human emissions.

Below is a brief summary of some of the latest research that underscores the lack of connection between anthropogenic influences and climate-related changes in the Arctic.

“As far as I’m concerned, all this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.” – Robert W. Felix

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physicalchemist.

Look at how many periods of warmth our planet has enjoyed during the past 10,000 years alone.

Civilizations flourished during those warm periods, and collapsed when they ended.

Did humans cause the Minoan warm period of of about 3,300 years ago?

Did humans cause the Roman warm period of about 2,100 years ago?

Did humans cause the Medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago?

What about all of those other warm periods? Should we blame Fred Flintstone, perhaps?

Now look at where we are today (at the far right side of the graph).

If the downward trend in temperature of the past 3,300 years continues, we could be in a heap of trouble. While our leaders keep on wringing their collective hands over global warming, we could be blindsided by an ice age.

As far as I’m concerned, all this talk about human-caused global warming is sheer nonsense, if not downright fraud. The record shows that both periods of warmth – and periods of cold – hit our planet with almost consistent regularity.

______________________

The above chart is based on data from GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2). GISP2 drilled cores into the Greenland ice more than 3000 meters (almost 2 miles) deep, allowing scientists to study climate variability for the past 125,000 years.

“WE live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us.“
– Saufatu Sopoanga, fmr Prime Minister ofTuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003

THE Pacific island nation of Tuvalu has long been cited as proof that rising seas caused by man-made climate change are going to drown Pacific and Indian island atolls.

THE climate-obsessed fake news media has gleefully pawned the emotional link between climate change and ‘sinking’ tropical islands for eons … “The tiny pacific island nation of Tuvalu looks set to become a victim of global warming, with the entire country predicted to be washed away in 50 years.”(BBC 2002)

TUVALU’s plight even formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”!

CLIMATISM, along with the climate sceptic “denier” community have been citing real science, data and observations that have consistently contradicted the fashionable claims of “sinking islands” for years, only to be given the standard respect from the lame-stream activist media…crickets.

WHAT has now become even more apparent is that the purported plight of Pacific and Indian Ocean Island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, Seychelles and the Maldives serve merely as emotional arguments to promote the global climate agenda, whilst cash-strapped and over-populated island nations use the associated climate guilt as a vehicle to pursue compensation to be paid by Western nations. Economic outcomes in line with the United Nation’s wealth redistribution agenda.

DELLERS with a great summary of the latest “scientific” study out of Nature journal that has sent another alarmist claim to the propaganda graveyard…

Tuvalu – the Pacific island group often cited by climate alarmists as the nation most immediately at risk from rising sea levels caused by ‘global warming’ – is not sinking after all.

A University of Auckland study examined changes in the geography of Tuvalu’s nine atolls and 101 reef islands between 1971 and 2014, using aerial photographs and satellite imagery.

It found eight of the atolls and almost three-quarters of the islands grew during the study period, lifting Tuvalu’s total land area by 2.9 percent, even though sea levels in the country rose at twice the global average.

Co-author Paul Kench said the research, published Friday in the journal Nature Communications, challenged the assumption that low-lying island nations would be swamped as the sea rose.

“We tend to think of Pacific atolls as static landforms that will simply be inundated as sea levels rise, but there is growing evidence these islands are geologically dynamic and are constantly changing,” he said.

“The study findings may seem counter-intuitive, given that (the) sea level has been rising in the region over the past half century, but the dominant mode of change over that time on Tuvalu has been expansion, not erosion.”

If only they’d done their study a bit earlier they could have saved a lot of alarmists a lot of worry.

As recently as last year, anxious wonks produced a paper for the World Bank arguing that the situation in Tuvalu (pop. 11,000) and nearby Kiribati (pop.107,000) was so dire that Australia and New Zealand should open their doors to the fleeing refugees.

According to the paper:

“The worsening impacts of climate change have provided a new moral imperative for providing open access.”

In 2007, Grist went so far as to cite Tuvalu of one of climate change’s most “tragic” victims.

‘Climate Change in Tuvalu’ even has its own Wikipedia page. It records possibly Tuvalu’s greatest moment of glory on the international stage when it seized the opportunity at the 2009 Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen to grandstand about its terrible plight.

In December 2009 the islands stalled talks at United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, fearing some other developing countries were not committing fully to binding deals on a reduction in carbon emission, their chief negotiator stated “Tuvalu is one of the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, and our future rests on the outcome of this meeting.”[57] When the conference failed to reach a binding, meaningful agreement, Tuvalu’s representative Ian Fry said, “It looks like we are being offered 30 pieces of silver to betray our people and our future… Our future is not for sale. I regret to inform you that Tuvalu cannot accept this document.”[58]

Fry’s speech to the conference was a highly impassioned plea for countries around the world to address the issues of man-made global warming resulting in climate change. The five-minute speech addressed the dangers of rising sea levels to Tuvalu and the world. In his speech Fry claimed man-made global warming to be currently “the greatest threat to humanity”, and ended with an emotional “the fate of my country rests in your hands”.[59]

Tuvalu’s plight also formed part of the basis for arguably the most hysterical fake news claim in the history of climate alarmism: the UN’s prediction that by the end of 2010, climate change would have created “50 million environmental refugees”.

The UN has since removed the claim from most of its websites. Happily, it can still be glimpsed in the Guardian archives:

Rising sea levels, desertification and shrinking freshwater supplies will create up to 50 million environmental refugees by the end of the decade, experts warn today. Janos Bogardi, director of the Institute for Environment and Human Security at the United Nations University in Bonn, said creeping environmental deterioration already displaced up to 10 million people a year, and the situation would get worse.

“There are well-founded fears that the number of people fleeing untenable environmental conditions may grow exponentially as the world experiences the effects of climate change,” Dr Bogardi said. “This new category of refugee needs to find a place in international agreements. We need to better anticipate support requirements, similar to those of people fleeing other unviable situations.”

In reality, the total number of environmental refugees fleeing climate change so far around the world is close to zero.

Seventeen people from the Pacific – including 11 from Tuvalu and five from Kiribati – have already made refugee claims in New Zealand, citing climate change as part of their basis of claim. None have been successful (four have yet to be determined and 13 have been rejected) because the refugees convention does not recognise climate change as grounds for protection.

To climate skeptics, the fact that Tuvalu is not drowning will come as no surprise whatsoever.

Their favorite sea levels expert – Nils-Axel Mörner – has written numerous papers on the subject.

WHEN building a product, a key element needed for its success is ’empathy’. It is vital for innovators to step into the consumers’ shoes to build relevant products. If a product addresses a pain point and offers a solution to take that pain away, then the product stands a good chance of being a hit!

THE “climate crisis” is like any other product, requiring a set of components executed efficiently and effectively so that it may thrive within the market place. Empathy has been a critical factor in the successful development of the global warming brand.

THE cuddly polar bear was initially chosen as the climate mascot, stimulating instant and long-lasting empathy for the cause.

BUT, the fluffy polar bear has its geographical limitations, and ‘inconveniently’, is far from endangered. So, a more ‘global’ phenomena has evolved to do the heavy-lifting, bringing climate calamity into every TV and iPhone on 24/7/365 rotation. “Extreme weather” was the chosen one and has been the gift that keeps on giving for “Climate Crisis Inc.” – taking advantage of any and every weather event, gobbling up the gullible in its propagandised path of eco-brainwashing.

*

EVEN though “weather” is not climate, the daily bombardment of climate disaster-porn via the mainstream media provides more than enough evidence for the casual observer to convince them that the climate is in fact changing as a direct result of human CO2 emissions.

HOWEVER, when you dive deeper into extreme weather metrics through the lens of government data and peer-reviewed science, as opposed to scary pictures and videos spewed out by the climate-obsessed fake news media, there really isn’t any data that supports the EW catastrophe meme. In fact, by most metrics, extreme weather events are becoming less extreme and less frequent as CO2 rises.

2017 seemed to be filled with bad weather news. But a deeper look at the global data suggests that attempts to link the last year’s extreme weather to climate change are highly misleading.

THIS excellent 6 minute video produced by the GWPF demonstrates precisely why – sadly – the mainstream (fake news) media, who have largely been captured by the radical environmental movement, cannot be trusted on anything climate change or global warming…

THE back-pedalling by climate ‘scientists’ continues as it becomes ever more obvious that their alarming projections have been deliberately exaggerated to push an agenda far removed from reality.

THE refined estimate of ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity – the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled) is even more significant considering that recent emissions of CO2 have been much greater than originally assumed, according to scientists.

Worst climate warnings ‘will not come true’

Earth’s climate may be less sensitive to man-made emissions than previously feared, a study has found. It raises hopes that the worst predictions about global warming can be avoided.

It suggests that the target set in the Paris Agreement on climate change of limiting the average temperature increase to well below 2C is more achievable than some scientists have claimed.

Apocalyptic predictions that the world could warm by up to 6C by 2100 with devastating consequences for humanity and nature are effectively ruled out by the findings.

However, the study makes clear that steep reductions in emissions will still be needed to avoid dangerous climate change. It also concludes that the aspirational target in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5C is less likely to be achieved.

The study, published in the journal Nature, refines previous estimates of how sensitive the climate is to carbon dioxide by considering the historical variability in global temperature.

It focuses on the key measure, known as equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which is used by climate scientists to make predictions. ECS is the amount of warming that would occur if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubled.

The concentration has already increased by about 50 per cent since pre-industrial times, from 270 parts per million (ppm) to 403ppm.

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a scientific body which advises governments, gives a range for ECS of 1.5–4.5 degrees C. The new study narrows this range to 2.2–3.4C.

Peter Cox, professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter and lead author of the paper, said his team had “squeezed both ends” of the range presented by the IPCC.

“We can rule out very low climate sensitivities that might imply you don’t need to do very much at all but also very high climate sensitivities that would be very difficult to adapt to.

“That’s useful because it gives policymakers and people an idea of what they have got to deal with and they can make decisions on that basis.”

Mr Cox said his study showed there was less need to worry about apocalyptic visions of the future, such as those presented in the 2007 award-winning science book Six Degrees – Our Future on a Hotter Planet, which had an image on the cover of a tidal wave breaking over Big Ben.

“The very high warming rates are looking less likely so that’s good news,” he said.

“Unless we do something bizarrely stupid, we are not looking at catastrophic climate change.

“But I wouldn’t want people to think we don’t need to act. It means that action is worthwhile. We can still stabilise the system if we choose to do so.

“We are definitely up against it but we aren’t in a position where we are talking about such large climate changes that we are just messing around on the decks of the Titanic. We know better now, I hope, from our work what we have got to do.”

He said his study showed the 2C target set in Paris was “still just about achievable” but limiting warming to 1.5C in the long term could only be achieved by “overshooting” and then somehow reducing the temperature using futuristic technology, such as artificial trees which suck CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Piers Forster, director of the Priestley International Centre for Climate at the University of Leeds, said the study “confirms that we will see significantly more warming and impacts this century if we don’t increase our ambition to reduce CO2 emissions; but the possibility of 6 degrees or more warming with associated devastating impacts can perhaps begin to be ruled out”.

EXCELLENT article written by a ‘Vegan Democrat’ and former CAGW believer, highlighting the reasons why many remain sceptical of the “settled science” of climate change…

*

By David Siegel Entrepreneur, investor, blockchain expert, start-up coach, CEO of the Pillar project and 20|30.io

Oct 15, 2015

What is your position on the climate-change debate? What would it take to change your mind?

If the answer is It would take a ton of evidence to change my mind, because my understanding is that the science is settled, and we need to get going on this important issue, that’s what I thought, too. This is my story.

More than thirty years ago, I became vegan because I believed it was healthier (it’s not), and I’ve stayed vegan because I believe it’s better for the environment (it is). I haven’t owned a car in ten years. I love animals; I’ll gladly fly halfway around the world to take photos of them in their natural habitats. I’m a Democrat: I think governments play a key role in helping preserve our environment for the future in the most cost-effective way possible. Over the years, I built a set of assumptions: that Al Gore was right about global warming, that he was the David going up against the industrial Goliath. In 1993, I even wrote a book about it.

Recently, a friend challenged those assumptions. At first, I was annoyed, because I thought the science really was settled. As I started to look at the data and read about climate science, I was surprised, then shocked. As I learned more, I changed my mind. I now think there probably is no climate crisis and that the focus on CO2 takes funding and attention from critical environmental problems. I’ll start by making ten short statements that should challenge your assumptions and then back them up with an essay.

There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.” Carbon dioxide is coming out of your nose right now; it is not a poisonous gas. CO2 concentrations in previous eras have been many times higher than they are today.

No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems. Additional man-made CO2 will not likely harm oceans, reef systems, or marine life. Fish are mostly threatened by people, who eat them. Reefs are more threatened by sunscreen than by CO2.

This nine-thousand-word essay represents over 400 hours of research boiled down into a half-hour reading experience, with links to 250+ carefully chosen documents and videos. I’m building the argument from the bottom up, so take your time and see if it makes sense. Along the way, I’ll list five “smoking guns” that I think make the argument for decarbonization unsupportable. Before we dive in, I want to talk about …

THIS “climate loop” graphic delineates precisely the scandalous gravy train and self-perpetuating madness of “Climate Crisis Inc.” Where screaming “SAVE THE PLANET” promises a bounty of backslapping, group approval, and if deceitful enough, free access to trillions of dollars of taxpayers money; unchallenged, unlimited, guaranteed by the bank of virtue-signalling, environmentalism and political correctness.